Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffmotion
plaintiffmotion

Related Cases

Environmental Defense Fund v. Hardin, 325 F.Supp. 1401, 2 ERC 1425, 1 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,207
View Case »
Former Employees of LTV Steel Co. v. U.S., Not Reported in F.Supp., 11 C.I.T. 522, 1987 WL 13885, 9 ITRD 1146
View Case »
Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. Massey, 772 F.Supp. 1296, 33 ERC 1796, 21 Envtl. L. Rep. 21,512
View Case »
Environmental Defense Fund v. Hardin, 325 F.Supp. 1401, 2 ERC 1425, 1 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,207
View Case »
Center for Environmental Science Accuracy and Reliability v. National Park Service, Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2016 WL 4524758
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Held v. Montana, Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2023 WL 1997864

Facts

Plaintiff Brenda Lee Held submitted a Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis, reporting a monthly income of $5,200.00 and an average monthly income of $6,000.00 for her spouse. She estimated her monthly expenses to be $5,848.00 and $4,514.00 for her spouse, and it appeared she had considerable assets. The court assessed her financial situation to determine if she qualified for indigent status.

It also appears Plaintiff has considerable assets.

Issue

Did Brenda Lee Held demonstrate sufficient financial need to qualify for in forma pauperis status?

Did Brenda Lee Held demonstrate sufficient financial need to qualify for in forma pauperis status?

Rule

A plaintiff need not be 'absolutely destitute' to proceed in forma pauperis, but must show that they cannot pay court costs while providing for themselves and their dependents.

A plaintiff need not be 'absolutely destitute' in order to proceed in forma pauperis.

Analysis

The court applied the rule by evaluating Held's reported income and expenses. Despite her claims of financial hardship, the court found that her income and assets indicated she could afford the filing fee without compromising her ability to meet basic living expenses.

Thus, Plaintiff has not made a sufficient showing that she cannot pay the filing fee and still provide herself with the necessities of life.

Conclusion

The court denied Held's Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis, requiring her to pay the full filing fee within thirty days or face dismissal of her complaint.

Therefore, because it appears Plaintiff should be in a position to pay the filing fee for this action, the Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis should be denied.

Who won?

The court prevailed in denying the motion, reasoning that Held's financial disclosures indicated she was capable of paying the filing fee.

Therefore, because it appears Plaintiff should be in a position to pay the filing fee for this action, the Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis should be denied.

You must be